Convicted federal criminal James O'Keefe and his band of co-conspirators at his ironically named Project Veritas outfit have another new video in their "Voter Fraud Investigation" series out. So that means, naturally, they're misleading the public again.

This time, O'Keefe's video portends to show some of his courageous, unnamed and unseen cohorts at various voter registration centers in Minnesota, asking whether they can have voter registration forms to take home to "Thomas Brady" and "Timothy Tebow", so they can register them to vote. The unseen voices are heard asking the helpful public clerks whether ID is necessary for those folks to register to vote. They are told that ID is not necessary in order for them to submit registration forms.

You'll recall that with O'Keefe's previous video --- in which they committed polling place voter fraud during the New Hampshire primary in order to "prove" that polling place voter fraud exists in the Granite State, despite no more than, at best, two known incidents of it over the past decade in the entire state --- he claimed: "Unlike the establishment media, Project Veritas works to release full, unedited versions of its investigations and stories," before he then linked to a video purporting to be the "full, unedited version" of his New Hampshire "investigation" videos. What he linked to, however, wasn't the "full, unedited version" of those videos, as they failed to show, among other things, the (at least) one incident in which one of his partners was chased out of the polling place. In other words, O'Keefe lied. That's what he does.

So I don't know if he has released an "unedited" version this time or not. I'm currently on the road and don't have enough time for his idiocy as is, so I haven't checked to see if there's another version of this. But let's go ahead and presume, for the moment, that the following edited version accurately-ish represents what happened when he sent his people into Minnesota voter registration offices...

Okay. Now let's dismantle O'Keefe's latest horse shit...

There are, essentially, two claims O'Keefe is hoping to illustrate here, as part of his Republican Party's years-long effort to force disenfranchising polling place Photo ID restrictions on voters, purportedly to combat their baseless claims of an epidemic of "voter fraud". You'll be stunned to learn that O'Keefe is being entirely dishonest in his latest propaganda in support of this GOP voter suppression effort.

The facts are that some 21 million legal American voters lack the state-issued Photo ID required under the measures O'Keefe is hoping to support here. And it's also a fact that those who lack such ID are disproportionately Democratic-leaning voters such as minorities, the elderly and students. For example, while 10% of the general voting public lack state-issued Photo ID, some 25% of African-Americans don't have it, and stand to be disenfranchised entirely under such laws. That's why he and his fellow Republicans are pushing for these new laws, as implemented since 2010 in nearly a dozen states where the GOP controls both the legislature and the executive branch.

In his latest video, O'Keefe two illustrated claims are: 1) No ID is needed to register to vote in Minnesota and 2) After registering without an ID, one could subsequently vote fraudulently via absentee ballot.

Both of those claims are, by and large, true-ish --- at least in Minnesota, though in many other states as well. But there are two key points, one for each of his claims, that O'Keefe fails to mention in the disingenuous video.

1) While one can indeed register to vote (in most places) without showing an ID via third party, what O'Keefe fails to mention in his video, is that the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 already requires those who do not register in person to provide ID when voting for the first time at the polling place. In other words, if "Thomas Brady" registers to vote via the registration forms received via O'Keefe's video, he would be required, by federal law, to show an ID the first time he votes in person at the polling place. That is already federal law. O'Keefe must have forgotten to mention that in his latest "Voter Fraud Investigation" video.

2) To work around the above point in order to commit voter fraud, one could, after committing a felony by fraudulently filling out a voter registration form, go ahead and commit another felony by voting via absentee ballot without having to show an ID, as also discussed in the video (at least in states which allow easy, "no-excuse" access for that type of voting.) It would, indeed, be possible, in this way, to commit voter fraud, if one wished to risk the very high penalties for committing yet another felony. What O'Keefe fails to mention in his video, however, is that the polling place Photo ID restrictions that Republicans have been pushing for, and which this video is obviously meant to support, would do nothing to prevent this absentee voter fraud!

So what have we learned here? O'Keefe, an accomplished scam artist and federal criminal who pretends to be a "journalist", is happy to give misleading information suggesting that one can register and subsequently vote anytime, anywhere, with no ID ever required. That is false. An ID would be required, by federal law, at the polling place under his scenario in every state inthe union, but he dishonestly fails to mention that.

He almost certainly knows about that law, which is likely why his co-conspirators inquire about absentee voting, which a dedicated felon might exploit --- and risk imprisonment and hefty fines --- in order to try and work around that existing federal law. While that's just one of the reasons why, as we have long argued here, absentee Vote-by-Mail is a terrible idea, unless it's really necessary, the fact is, that type of voter fraud would not be prevented by the polling place Photo ID measures which O'Keefe and fellow Republicans are pushing.

The only thing that would come about under such laws is that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of legal American voters would be entirely disenfranchised, and unable to cast their legal votes.

The only type of voter fraud which could possibly be deterred by such measures would be in-person, polling place impersonation, which is so rare that even George W. Bush's own Dept. of Justice was unable to find even a single instance of it, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast across the nation during the years from 2002 to 2005, when they placed unprecedented resources into ferreting out such instances of voter fraud.

For some reason, O'Keefe has failed to mention --- or "investigate" --- any of those very recent, very real, not made-up-out-of-whole-cloth voter fraud issues in his series of videos claiming to be "Voter Fraud Investigations".

So, hmm...who's really the fraud here?

* * *

UPDATE 2/9/11: Well, guess what? Even with this dismantling, it looks like we gave O'Keefe far more credit than he deserves. His latest video scam is even more fraudulent than we'd originally reported. Details now here...

In most states it is illegal to video tape or audio tape someone without their express permission and knowledge. I suspect this snake used a "pen camera" or some other innocous device to video these election officials. If that is the case, easily determined by contacting the election officials in that office and asking if they knew and agreed to being recorded, our good Mr. James may have committed a crime for which he could and should be prosecuted. Anyone care to look into this just a bit further with a phone call or two?

Very classy, namenick, make sure you attack the blogger rather than stick to the issue. If you doubt Brad's numbers, please tell us how many voters YOU think it IS okay to disenfranchise with voter ID laws for a problem (fraudulent voters) that has been shown over and over to NOT be a significant problem. On the other hand, I surely doubt that you have any interest in hearing ANY FACTS that disagree with your belief system.

Are you part of some club? It's a recurring theme here. Clowns like you come in full of self-righteous, degrading, dismissive bullshit, make completely unsubstantiated claims, and than are gone in a puff of elephant droppings.

What's your purpose? Is that how you start meaningful conversations in your three dimensional existence? Do you have a three dimensional existence? Are you looking to join the diplomatic corps in Bizarro World?

The O'Keefe effect within American politics informs those of us, who have our eyes open, that in time even perfect voting systems with paper ballots and open counting will not heal our election system.

The Republican with the least amount of campaign money won in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri last night.

He openly declares that Global Warming is a Hoax that he has never believed.

He also says that the educational system of the U.S.eh? is a left-wing engine designed to keep the left in power.

I'm guessing the rules for commenting is that you have to agree with the nonsense on the blog.

1. You neglect to inform your reader that PF does not advocate policy merely exploits systemic weaknesses.
2. You're correct on the registration; I would presume ID would be required to register as well *duh*
3. The Federal Law doesn't apply to absentee ballots because well they never actually make it to the polls. So you're argument is dumb
4. The penalties are high but the risk is NIL,they have no teeth; that is to say its so difficult to convict someone of voter fraud unless they confess to it (in most cases). So its easy to say it doesn't happen because there's no way to really tell if it happens. Close the holes and it definitely won't happen. Its like having your eyes closed and saying "I don't see anything" duh you re eyes are closed.
5. I can find no arrest record made in New hampshire. Sounds like a lot of hype. When liberals disagree with someone they want them prosecuted and thrown in jail. he truth is James didn't violate any laws. No ballots were taken or cast, there was no provable intent to cast votes, nor did they impersonate people they merely asked if they were on the rolls. In one instance in the NH video a ballot clerk asks one of O'Keefe's peeps if HE IS THAT PERSON, and he says NO, he's actully dead just wanted to see if hes been purged from the list. The truth is they have egg on their face and all the angry libs cry for prosecution but there is no case for it. Face it. James is just smarter than you are.

I started working up a point by point refutation of Silas @9 but as I was going through the points I saw that it's all misinformed gobbledygook that makes about as much sense as his opening completely contradictory statement. If nobody else gets to it, maybe I can come back and do it later. Sleep-deprived at the moment and don't have the energy for this braindead O'Keefe supporting bullshit right now.

And in terms of left-right politics, the less they are capable of deductive reasoning and other beneficial thinking skills, the more likely they are to end up as right-wing political voters (Bright Minds, Psychological Science Journal, February 2012, vol. 23 no. 2, 187-195, free PDF download available).

Further, the educational system did not help him much either, and at this point he is not likely to try to shake the problem.

Are you calling James A. Baker III (who convinced the U.S. Supreme Court that votes shouldn't be counted at all in the state of Florida in 200) and President Jimmy Carter liars?

You sir, are a douche.

Maybe. But I've got my facts very straight, my head not in my ass, I give a damn about my country and defending it's constitution, and I don't find it necessary to be a coward and hide behind anonymous blog comments when making my point. But keep up your courageous "freedom fighting" there, sexy!

"PF"? What is "PF"? Do you mean "PV"? As in the ironically named James O'Keefe's Project Veritas? If so, apparently you have no idea how propaganda works. More likely, you do. Which is why you are here to share some more of it.

2. You're correct on the registration; I would presume ID would be required to register as well *duh*

If that's what you'd "presume", then I guess you know nothing about how our nation actually works. Registration drives happen all over the country by third party groups who have neither the skills nor resources to validate ID. The good news, as I note in the story, and as pretend cub reporter Jimmy failed note, is that ID is required when such folks vote for the first time at the polling place if they didn't register in person.

Of course, I'm sure you realize that ACORN was never found guilty of such a serious crime, right? Even though they managed to legally register millions of legal American voters until Jimmy's fake propaganda videos succeeded in putting them out of business.

3. The Federal Law doesn't apply to absentee ballots because well they never actually make it to the polls. So you're argument is dumb

Um, I think that was my argument. Did you even bother to read the article above before you decide to comment on it???

4. The penalties are high but the risk is NIL,they have no teeth; that is to say its so difficult to convict someone of voter fraud unless they confess to it (in most cases).

So its easy to say it doesn't happen because there's no way to really tell if it happens. Close the holes and it definitely won't happen. Its like having your eyes closed and saying "I don't see anything" duh you re eyes are closed.

No, it's easy to say it doesn't happen, because it doesn't happen. Almost ever. As I noted in the article above, however, it does happen via abseent voting on occassion, though the polling place Photo ID restriction voter suppression policies that James O'Keefe's Project Veritias is supporting do nothing to prevent it. Odd that he wouldn't mention that as part of his "investigation".

5. I can find no arrest record made in New hampshire. Sounds like a lot of hype. When liberals disagree with someone they want them prosecuted and thrown in jail.

When fake "conservatives" (fake, because clearly, they don't give a damn about things actual conservatives care about, like the Rule of Law), disagree with someone, they call them "Liberals", whether they are or not.

truth is James didn't violate any laws. No ballots were taken or cast, there was no provable intent to cast votes, nor did they impersonate people they merely asked if they were on the rolls. In one instance in the NH video a ballot clerk asks one of O'Keefe's peeps if HE IS THAT PERSON, and he says NO, he's actully dead just wanted to see if hes been purged from the list.

You are wrong, as detailed in my original coverage of Jimmy's NH voter fraud conspiracy which details the very specific laws that he broke. And, in case you didn't bother to watch the supposed "full, unedited videos" (which are neither full, nor unedited), at least one of his co-conspirators absolutely identified himself as a recently deceased person, they all received ballots falsely by misrepresenting themselves to election officials, and they all illegally recorded conversations in violation of the state's privacy laws.

Whether they are prosecuted is another matter. We shall see. As you alluded in a different instance, the penalties for breaking the laws that they did are high, but Jimmy happens to have Republican Party superstar attorneys at his disposal, so he's able to avoid prosecution and/or have felony charges bargained down to misdemeanors, as was the case in his failed wiretap plot, as described by the FBI, in a U.S. Senators office.

The truth is they have egg on their face and all the angry libs cry for prosecution but there is no case for it. Face it. James is just smarter than you are.

Yes. He's very very smart. Which one of us is a federal criminal, btw?

I know this is not the focus for this article, but you have repeatedly made the claim that elderly voters are more likely to vote Democratic. What is your evidence for that?
...
Voter ID laws will discriminate against the elderly, and I am against them. I just don't believe the elderly are a natural Democratic constituency.

Thanks for that question, Randy! I'm currently on the road, so unable to spend the time Googling that I'd otherwise like, so this may be an unsatisfying answer for the moment.

Some months ago, Rachel Maddow made a similar assertion (that elderly tended to vote Republican), which led me to dig in and check those stats. Unfortunately, I don't have the cites for you right now, as mentioned. So, in short, for the moment, with the elderly, unlike minorities, it tends to have more to do with where they are located and how elderly they are. For example, the older they are, the more they tend to ally with the FDR error (wherein everybody voted Democratic! )

Also, the elderly are more reliant on social programs, like Medicare and Social Security, which the GOP generally oppose. So they become a Democratic constituency under that basis as well. But, all of that can also be dependent on location where some elderly voters lean more R in some parts of the country, but more D in others.

Again, sorry for the lack of specific cites here. I had tracked all of that down previously after Maddow had made what seemed to be an inaccurate claim. What I had found was that she was right, but only in regard to the specific state she had been referring to at the time, as opposed to the national voting populace at large.

Thanks for looking into my question, Brad. I've found several voter polls from 2008 that show 65+ voted more for McCain than Obama. I'm trying to locate a study that breaks senior voting (or opinion) down by age, gender, and INCOME (which I suspect will have an impact).

In doing so, I stumbled upon the dumbest senior question of all time: "Seniors are the least likely of all age groups in the U.S. to say that healthcare reform will benefit their personal healthcare situation." Gallop, 7/31/09. Well, duh, they ALREADY have access to government run healthcare (Medicare) and it is wildly popular, so of course they are "least effected" by reform.

Vote fraud is a real issue, as listed above by both parties. Every time it takes place someone's legitimate vote is nullified. O'Keefe points out that it is possible to vote fraudulently rather easily. The author states that a voter ID law would do nothing to prevent absentee vote fraud. To that I say it depends on the details within the law. In Wisconsin, which until recently had very lax laws, the new voter ID act requires a copy of photo ID be submitted along with the absentee ballot which substantially tightens that loophole.

Had to sign on to say hello to everyone and tell David Las @19 thanks for the link...Didn't think too terribly much about the vid (although voter suppression is a huge problem) until around the 42 minute mark when Crispen-Miller gets to the meat of the problem...HE GETS IT...
Must be hangin around here...
As far as brains in a big toe I think it would be better to use the ones we have upstairs first..

...the only thing I would disagree with on the vid at #19 was they said all people should be automatically registered to vote where I think that leaves the system more open to hacking in to vote for the registered non-voter at the precinct/state level as evidenced by people going to the polls and being told that they already voted by the poll workers.

Crispin Miller read "Truth is all" book
Way to go Richard, you were brought up in the video...

The only form of "voter fraud" that can possibly be addressed by the spate of disenfranchising GOP polling place photo ID laws is in person impersonation --- which is virtually non-existent, a point demonstrated by Loyola Law Professor Justin Levitt in sworn testimony before the U.S. Senate:

In his written testimony, Levitt revealed that, since 2000, there were "nine allegations of votes [in general elections] that might have involved votes cast by individuals impersonating others," but those nine may be the result of "poll worker error or voter confusion...During the same period, 400 million votes were cast...Even assuming that each of the nine votes were fraudulent, that amounts to a relevant fraud rate of 0.000002 percent. Americans are struck and killed by lightning more often."